Which is the better solution for a digital R?

[El_Ingles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although something of an apples compared with oranges question, which solution provides the better image quality with R lenses at low to medium ISO speeds for prints to A4: an R8 with DMR or a 5D II with adaptor?

[stunsworth]

I'd go for the DMR. Auto diaphragm, no problem with incorrect exposure tracking, no problem with some lenses not working, and a fantastic viewfinder for manual focussing. Colours from the DMR are pretty special too.

 

But you are correct, it is an apples and oranges comparison, and other factors may be more important for you.

[GreyCoupe]

If size and weight are not issues, DMR is easily the best option. Most of us were hoping for an updated R8/R9 sized R10 with current mp capacity. If size/weight/portability are of consideration, one can do worse than the Panasonic G1/GH1/R adapter solution. Long lenses require a tripod or other stabalization, and the little body offers no balance with this heavier glass. MF, manual exposure or AP exposure control. Not satisfying to handle with anything longer than the 100mm/APO, but light is passing through my Leica glass again.

 

Or one can wait for Leica's stated "digital solution", from whoever, whenever, if ever. I think a camera body which would permit full metering options and focus confirmation would sell well not just to former R8/R9 aficionados, but the thousands of R lens owners, regardless of the manufacturer.

[El_Ingles]

Many thanks to you both for your thoughts. Even though my menagerie of camera equipment features an R8 and 5D II, I still think the DMR offers the better option. What puts me off burdening my credit card with another 2.000€ of debt is that the mythical digital R solution may appear and sooner rather than later. It would be nice if Leica came clean. It's not an ordinary camera company after all. . .

[andybarton]

Don't hold your breath...

 

I was very disappointed with Leica's announcement last year and went out and bought a D700 to replace my DMR that I had sold in anticipation of the R10.

 

I have been very, very happy with the Nikon (with my Leica lenses), and wouldn't buy any "Leica" alternative now at any price.

 

They let me and a lot of R users down very badly last year and have therefore lost our trust. Leica need to learn how to handle their loyal "minority" customers. The only way that they will learn is for people to vote with their feet and their charge cards.

[lct]

Exactly.

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

+1 (But I'm mug enough to be still waiting!)

[tobey bilek]

On the money Andy.

 

I just put two Fotodiox replacement mounts on my 28 & 35 PC lenses and use them on my D700. They are about the same as my Nikkor AiS at F8. But the Nikkors do not shift.

 

Still trying to decide if I will be doing other conversions as I have also aquired a rather complete set of Nikon glass, two sets actually, one AF and one MF. Let me tell you, AF can spoil you real fast. Manual is fine for most all my work, but chasing kids and other fast moving stuff, AF is grand.

 

I would have prefered an R10 without AA or blur filter in front of the sensor, But that is not forthcoming. Electronic VF is not a solution no matter how good it is.

 

They could have developed an R10 and a line of AF lenses and made the mount compatable with older R glass, but they went for the $30,000 camera. After they sell 12, they will seee the error of their ways.

[Riley]

Just a thought based on using MF lense

 

I cannot comment on usage utility because I have never used a DMR just seen through the viewfinder, based on that alone it would be a better choice for MF against 5D/5DII which is the lesser even to my E3.

[lct]

...I cannot comment on usage utility because I have never used a DMR just seen through the viewfinder, based on that alone it would be a better choice for MF against 5D/5DII which is the lesser even to my E3.

Which focus screen(s) did you use with your Canons if i may ask?

[stunsworth]

Which focus screen(s) did you use with your Canons if i may ask?

 

Sorry to butt in, but I used a Brightscreen on my 5D, and while it was an improvement on the standard screen I still preferred the finder on the R8. Brighter, and the images seemed to pop into focus in a way they didn't on the Canon.

[Riley]

EeD with a grid

 

I tried EeS too but it was too dark for my L lenses and I didnt want to mess with changing screens just because I changed lenses. I could get by with 5D and MF lenses, at one point I had all Contax glass and no AF glass, but I would be limited to slower apertures/slower lenses in mission critical photos. The playback screen is zero help to check focus, and the controls are a dog to operate as far as ISO goes

[lct]

Sorry to butt in, but I used a Brightscreen on my 5D, and while it was an improvement on the standard screen I still preferred the finder on the R8...

So do i but the Brightscreen is far better than the Canon's.

Edit: I mean far better than the regular Canon's. The EeS is in between in that it is less accurate than the Brightscreen at faster apertures than f/5.6 in my experience. But i would prefer the EeS if i'd use slow apertures more often than i do as it does not darken the same way as the microprisms of the Brightscreen.

[El_Ingles]

On the other hand, I presume the viewfinder of the Canon shows exactly what will be recorded when using R lenses. Whereas the R8/R9 need the special focusing screen which uses a bright frame to show the 1.37x magnification factor of the DMR.

 

As to the best 35mm viewfinder, digital or film, the Nikon F6 has the best I have seen (through).

[Paolo.Battista]

Thanks to what available today on the market, I think that a choice of a Canon or Nikon FF plus a Four Third Camera is quite a good solution.

When not shooting wide, Olympus has some advantage with the 2x focal length multiplication factor and in body image stabilization, that combined together can often be of a certain usefulness. And the 4/3 sensors between 7.4 (I quite like the output from my Digilux 3, at least for "social" photography) and 10 megapixles are not bad at all when used up to 800 ISO.

A 10 MP 4/3 sensor is like having a FF sensor of about 35 MP, so the 2x factor will be somethingh useful at least for some years, and the investment in an E3 is not so huge.

 

As far as the EVF is concearned, I liked the implementation in the Digilux 2, even if the technology was absolutely not ready for such an implementation. I would like to see somethingh similar with newer technologies (updated sensor, updated EVF, same body and same lens than the Digilux 2). After that, I could at least understand if EVF could be used even on DSLR. PEN, G, Nex, NV, all of them does not offer today a true body where evaluating seriously this system, at least from my (not so exaustive) experience with some of them.

 

Best regards.

 

Paolo

[Mauribix]

I've seen great things with the Sony Alpha FF bodies (900-850).

With the Leitax bayonet, it should be possible to use almost any Leica R lens on the Alpha, including the 21-35 vario, 35lux and 50lux.

Take a look on it, the Sony VF seems to be pretty brilliant as well.

Ciao